Full Judgment Text
1
NonReportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.857 OF 2018
(Arising from SLP(Crl.) No.387/2018)
OM PRAKASH SINGH ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2017
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2018.07.11
16:30:31 IST
Reason:
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 52088/2013 allowing the petition filed by
2
respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. By the impugned judgment, the High Court
has set aside the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar in Siwan (M) P.S. Case No.
288/2012, taking cognizance of the offence under Section
420/406/379/448/307/427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code against the accusedrespondent nos. 2 and 3
herein.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 30.05.2006, Dr.
Ira Sinha purchased fully automatic Biochemistry Analyser model
“Echo Plus” along with standard accessories from M/s Logotech
(India) Private Limited (hereinafter called ‘the Logotech’), of which
respondent nos. 2 and 3 are Director and Technical Director
respectively. The sale consideration of the said machine was Rs.7
lakhs. The machine was supposed to be fully automatic
Biochemistry Analyser with free warranty maintenance for a period
of three years. However, a maintenance of Rs.20,000/ per annum
was to be paid by the purchaser after expiry of three years. The
appellant is the husband of Dr. Ira Sinha. It was found out by the
3
appellant and his wife that the Biochemistry Analyser purchased by
them was not functioning properly and was showing inaccurate
results due to manufacturing defect. Though, several visits were
made by the maintenance agents of the Logotech for repairing the
machine, the same was not successful. Thereafter, as suggested by
the officials of the Logotech, Dr. Ira Sinha relying upon the
assurance and recommendation of the officials of the Logotech,
purchased a random access fully automatic analyser model “Miura
200” along with standard accessories from the Logotech in
exchange of the earlier model “Echo Plus” on 25.07.2007. The sale
price of “Miura200” was Rs.11 lakhs. Thus, Dr. Ira Sinha had to
pay balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs extra (i.e. over and above Rs.
Seven lakhs). On payment, as mentioned supra, “Miura200” model
was installed in Prachi Pathological Clinic of Dr. Ira Sinha.
However, annual maintenance costs of Rs.40,000/ was to be paid
by the purchaser after expiry of free warranty period.
4. Unfortunately, “Miura200” model was also not functioning
properly and regular problems were being faced in the use of the
said machine at the pathological clinic of Dr. Ira Sinha. The
4
officials of the Logotech were not paying proper attention and care,
though several repeated complaints were made by the purchaser.
Being aggrieved, Dr. Ira Sinha lodged an FIR in Siwan Police Station
on 24.03.2008, which came to be registered as case no.61/2008
under Sections 420/406/384/386 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Siwan. The charge sheet was
submitted by the said police station before the Magistrate, who took
cognizance of the offences. However, the High Court of Judicature
at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36923/2008 quashed the
cognizance order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan.
5. Despite receipt of annual comprehensive maintenance cost of
Rs.40,000/, the officials of the Logotech were not resolving the
issues faced in the functioning of “Miura200” model. Therefore,
Dr. Ira Sinha contacted the manufacturer of “Miura200” model,
Logotech, Rome, Italy with her grievances. The manufacturer
directed the thirdparty service provider, i.e., “Key Pharma Limited,
Delhi”, to look after and solve the problems of “Miura200” machine
purchased by Dr. Ira Sinha. Service engineer/ technical
representative of Key Pharma Limited visited the pathological clinic
5
of Dr. Ira Sinha to check the machine in question. After an in
depth verification of the machine, it was found that the original
parts of the machine have been replaced by duplicate parts, causing
inaccurate results. Hence, the technical expert changed some of
the duplicate parts with original parts as they were readily available
with him at that time. He promised that he would inform the top
officials of the manufacturer about the fiddle play of the Logotech.
The said engineer/ technical service expert, issued a report (i.e.
Service Report) dated 17.04.2012 under his signature evidencing
fitting of duplicate parts of the machine in place of the original
ones. The copy of the report is also furnished along with the
appeal. Having come to know about such service report against
respondent nos. 2 and 3, they started threatening the purchaser to
return back the copy of the service report to them, for which the
appellant and his wife refused. They even threatened with dire
consequences of taking away their life. According to the appellant,
respondent nos. 2 and 3 even tried to shoot them and allegedly
tried to take back the service report dated 17.04.2012 from their
possession. Having no other go, the appellant lodged an FIR before
6
Siwan Police Station, which came to be registered as Siwan (M) P.S.
Case No. 288/2012 for the offences under Sections
420/406/374/448/307/ 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. In the said matter, the charge sheet came to be filed by
the police station after due investigation before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan,
took cognizance of the offences. The said order of cognizance was
questioned by respondent nos. 2 and 3 before the High Court of
Judicature at Patna by filing petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The said petition was allowed by the
impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates from both the sides, we
find that the High Court is at fault in allowing the petition filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without duly
appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without
effectively considering the allegations made in the complaint and
materials found in the charge sheet. The High Court is mainly
influenced by the factum that the earlier order of taking cognizance
was quashed while deciding the present matter. In our considered
7
opinion, it is an error to conceive that the present proceedings
based on the subsequent complaint are liable to be quashed merely
because the earlier criminal proceedings were quashed. The High
Court rather advanced erroneously on the basis of presumptions
and conjectures, without considering the merits of the matter.
7. It is pertinent to note that the subsequent FIR dated
05.08.2012 from which the present proceedings emerge is thrust
upon discovery of a new fact of replacing the original parts with the
duplicate ones. The subject matter of the complaint is in relation to
the superior model “Miura200”, upgraded on the advice of the
respondentcompany. Though, the appellant and his wife agreed
and got their machine upgraded to “Miura200” by paying Rs.4
lakhs extra, it is found by the technical expert appointed by the
manufacturer that the “Miura200” supplied by respondent nos. 2
and 3 was containing duplicate parts. In other words, the original
parts were replaced by the duplicate parts at the time of supply of
machine to the appellant, and subsequently the machine was not
working properly resulting in inaccurate results. Thus, it is clear
that the subsequent complaint dated 05.08.2012 is based on new
8
set of facts and new set of allegations and not based on old set of
allegations as have been made in the FIR dated 24.03.2008. It is
needless to repeat that the FIR dated 24.03.2008 was based on the
allegations of nonfunctioning of the machine in addition to delay
and carelessness of respondent nos. 2 and 3 in getting the machine
repaired. At that time, the appellant and his wife were not aware
about replacement of the original parts with the duplicate ones.
The Service report of “Key Pharma Limited” was not in existence at
that time. Therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan was
justified in taking the cognizance, since prima facie case is found
against respondent nos. 2 and 3.
8. This Court in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthy v. the State of
U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 435, para 30] has observed that “the law does
not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on
the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on
the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed
without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete
facts could not be placed before the Court, or where the
complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first
9
complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour.
However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein
the earlier complaint has been disposed on full consideration of the
case of the complainant on merit”. In the matter on hand, the
complainant/appellant came to know certain facts relating to the
replacement of parts of the machine after the disposal of the first
complaint, that too after getting a service report from “Key Pharma
Limited, Delhi”, and, therefore, there is no bar for the appellant to
lodge second complaint.
9. Looking to the complaint and the chargesheet, it is clear that
the complainant has made host of allegations. The police after due
investigation filed the chargesheet. On going through the available
material, we find a prima facie case against respondent nos. 2 and
3. Since the case has to be tried, we desist ourselves to comment
any further on the merits of the matter. We make it clear that the
observations made by us are only for disposal of this appeal. That
these observations of ours will not influence the trial court while
deciding the case. Since, we find prima facie material against
respondent nos. 2 and 3, the High Court is not justified in quashing
10
the proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High
Court is set aside. The order of taking cognizance passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in Siwan (M) P.S. Case No.
288/2012 stands restored.
..…………………………………….J.
[N.V. RAMANA]
……………………………………….J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 11, 2018.